fei
Full Member
Posts: 274
|
Post by fei on Jun 19, 2009 7:08:15 GMT -5
Thanks Padzilla, I just find out the bed that i sleep on is Kryptonite.No wonder i like look like this! Kind to think of it the salesperson look familiar? He look like Lex Luther! But I dont think much of it..
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Jul 18, 2009 0:36:22 GMT -5
I can't believe I missed this whole discussion - one of my favorite topics in moral philosophy and social policy. Ironically it was because I was in Turkey, which recently repealed its death penalty as part of its bid to join cilivilized Europe (where the death penalty has been a central human rights issue for over a century), and in Israel, where it is defacto illegal, where the prisons are full of convicted terrorists (but where extra-judicial assassinations are still carried out routinely in the West Bank and Gaza). Anyway, I am pleasantly surprised by the depth and tone of the discussion. There are plenty of good arguments for opposing the death penalty on both concrete economic/statistical grounds (from a public policy or utilitarian point of view) as well as on moral grounds.
I think the statistical argument is fairly solid though we do not have a true randomized experiment - cross-national and time-series evidence, as well as cross-state evidence in the US, offers no support for deterrence. The details of how much death row appeals cost vs. life imprisonment are not really interesting to me - in practice the death penalty costs more as applied now but we could easily envision systems where either could have a more beneficial economic impact.
The moral question for me often comes down to deeper philosophical issues, particularly your views on free will. As sensitive people who do not need the threat of punishment (let alone punishment by death) to deterr us from committing murder (or whatever act is deemed worthy of capital punishment), it is very difficult for us to put ourselves in the mind-set of individuals who commit such reprehensible acts. Do they really face a choice between good and evil and then freely choose evil?
Many reprehensible individuals are no doubt the products of their social and genetic environments, take your pick (there is some evidence about male chromosomes, testosterone, etc. and murderers that I can't be bothered to look up right now). Yet there may be some who are not, who really had all the same genes and lucky breaks I had in life and yet still freely choose to commit horrible acts (yes, I'm looking at you my evil identical serial child rapist/murderer twin). I don't really think that I, or society, has the ability to discriminate between these cases, so even if I did believe that some people fall into latter category (and I'm by no means convinced) I would have to err on the side of life imprisonment rather than the death penalty. Someone who is irreperably screwed up for genetic or environmental reasons (or insanity, or anything really) might still need to be kept apart from society, but the "punishment of evil" motive is much weaker.
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Jul 19, 2009 9:09:44 GMT -5
I agree that money has an effect on our moral position, which is why I said to leave it out so it doesn't. Reasoning... I guess I want to abstract reality in an attempt to reach pure morals. Forgetting about criminal psychology, cost effectiveness, etc., and simply asking whether or not it's right. Like, maybe taking a life deters a criminal. Does that make it justified? What if it didn't deter the criminal? This way, it seems we're using lives as tools to influence the behaviour of other people. Is this (morally) right? Reality doesn't seem important to me at this point. 'What happens' and 'what's right/ what should happen' are separate issues. I'm just interested in what should happen. Well, in that case the most obvious point would be: it is morally permissible to deprive someone of their life because they have proven to be guilty of depriving another human being of their life? Except in real life, reality would cloud this issue - primarily that poor people tend to be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced on crimes, and the probability of the aforementioned three things happening increases the further down the socio-economic food chain the accused happens to inhabit... Or some families of survivors want the convicted to die, while other don't. Basically, it is impossible to divorce reality from morals or ethics or philosophy - indeed it could be said that moral philosophy that has no grounding in reality would severely lack any credibility.. Just a thought, not a criticism - but wanting to have discussions on morality not based on, or abstracting, reality would seem, imho, to be disrespecting the victims. After all, the whole the system of crime and punishment exists on the moral pretence of delivering some kind of justice to victims (e.g justice will be served so it is worth respecting society's rules)... otherwise, why bother? And what exactly is 'pure' morals? Can you define it - assuming it does not mean abstracting reality. peace
|
|
|
Post by halfbreed on Jul 19, 2009 9:57:12 GMT -5
Basically, it is impossible to divorce reality from morals or ethics or philosophy - indeed it could be said that moral philosophy that has no grounding in reality would severely lack any credibility.. Just a thought, not a criticism - but wanting to have discussions on morality not based on, or abstracting, reality would seem, imho, to be disrespecting the victims. After all, the whole the system of crime and punishment exists on the moral pretence of delivering some kind of justice to victims (e.g justice will be served so it is worth respecting society's rules)... otherwise, why bother? It's about being objective, not subjective. These 'pure morals' are unlikely to be credible or whatever because it's not what people want, and so, they kick up a fuss. Same with the victims. They've been scorned, boo hoo, hang the guy! Same with most cases of majority vs. minority. We're altering too much on behalf of those affected, and less for those involved (good e.g. gay marriage). And what exactly is 'pure' morals? Can you define it - assuming it does not mean abstracting reality. Pure morals: what is right and what is wrong; not what is convenient/desired/practical/economical/people-pleasing.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Jul 19, 2009 13:57:48 GMT -5
I think halfbreed has in mind something like the German Idealism of Kant, where value judgments about what we "should" do and right and wrong can be derived from first principles, ideas, rational thought, etc. independently of local customs, history, personal experience, etc. Something like the categorical imperative. Obviously logical positivism and the like does not get you into the kind of moral territory we are traversing, and utilitarianism/empiricism/relativism, etc. is more along the lines of the "convenient/desired/practical/economical/people-pleasing." I agree with Miaim's dislike of moral philosophy abstracted from reality (the reality of lived experience in society) - I can't imagine a human born in isolation from society would have anything interesting to say about the morality of the death penalty (revealing my distaste for genetic/biological determinism when it comes to morality, but that's another story that hasn't come up yet). But that certainly hasn't prevented brilliant minds like Kant and others from doing so. At least a morality grounded in Kantian idealism seems preferable to one based on divine commandment.
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 19, 2009 14:45:28 GMT -5
^ "Pure morals" implies that something is impure about morals.
Isn't that sense of purity/impurity also a moral calculation? Rather than denying reality, I think it is limiting the question by already affirming someone else's sense or morality.
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Jul 19, 2009 19:18:18 GMT -5
It's about being objective, not subjective. These 'pure morals' are unlikely to be credible or whatever because it's not what people want, and so, they kick up a fuss. Same with the victims. They've been scorned, boo hoo, hang the guy! Same with most cases of majority vs. minority. We're altering too much on behalf of those affected, and less for those involved (good e.g. gay marriage). But judging by your comment above, you are being subjective, not objective - which is why I struggle to understand your claim of, and insistence on, 'objectivity'. Can you give a 'pure', objective reason why gay marriage is 'good'? Pure morals: what is right and what is wrong; not what is convenient/desired/practical/economical/people-pleasing. But what is right and wrong is never so clear cut. For example, some abortion opponents believe they are being purely and objectively 'right' when they protest outside abortion clinics and even murder doctors. And these ones support the death penalty. Whereas other abortion activists are against killing in any form (they are generally Catholics, but I digress) - abortion and the death penalty. Would say the Catholics are more consistent - but whether they are more 'pure' is subjective since they ally themselves with and associate with people who disagree fundamentally with them and take actions that are opposed to their moral positions. Unfortunately, is nearly impossible to agree on what 'pure' morals - what is objectively right, as you put it - because humans are not objective beings. At least a morality grounded in Kantian idealism seems preferable to one based on divine commandment. Would agree with that - however, commonly shared moral values reflect the principles of the locally dominant religion, pretty much everywhere in the world. Without that, we would be left only with personal opinions on what morality is, or total subjectivity. Ironic, I know. Also, would argue that 18th and 19th century European philosophers never could escape their background - so their views tend to mirror those of the dominant culture. Another thing: when polled, a clear majority (in the 70 percentile range) of EU citizens support the death penalty. So the absence of the death penalty in the EU is arguably more a reflection of the elitism of the European political class...just saying! ^ "Pure morals" implies that something is impure about morals. Isn't that sense of purity/impurity also a moral calculation? Rather than denying reality, I think it is limiting the question by already affirming someone else's sense or morality. In this particular thread, and judging by HB's vague posts, the implication is that it is reality, not morals, that is 'impure'. Therefore, morality formed through reality (or real life experiences) is 'impure', whereas morality based on abstract principles is pure. What you make of such statement depends on....well.... If you want to whittle it down, a question like ' Is it morally right to kill someone if you believe they have killed someone else?' would have been more appropriate than discussing the death penalty, which is already tainted by impurities that are reality (court trials, judgement by third parties such as a jury or judge - you know the stuff that happens prior to death penalty), but I digress. peace
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Jul 19, 2009 22:17:06 GMT -5
^Would agree with that - however, commonly shared moral values reflect the principles of the locally dominant religion, pretty much everywhere in the world. Without that, we would be left only with personal opinions on what morality is, or total subjectivity. Ironic, I know.
Also, would argue that 18th and 19th century European philosophers never could escape their background - so their views tend to mirror those of the dominant culture.
Hey I agree completely. However, I think there is at least some value in articulating reasons beyond "God said so" for morality, even if ultimately that morality is non-coincidentally similar to morality based on Judeo-Christian revelation. In that sense the theologians who sought to ground biblical precepts based on "natural law", etc. were doing something similar - seeking to articulate reasons for dominant cultural paradigms. In advancing a reason beyond "God said so" I think we still make some progress as a species, even if all of our reasoning is post facto justification for the religion we grew up with.
|
|
|
Post by miaim on Jul 19, 2009 23:34:29 GMT -5
However, I think there is at least some value in articulating reasons beyond "God said so" for morality, even if ultimately that morality is non-coincidentally similar to morality based on Judeo-Christian revelation. In that sense the theologians who sought to ground biblical precepts based on "natural law", etc. were doing something similar - seeking to articulate reasons for dominant cultural paradigms. In advancing a reason beyond "God said so" I think we still make some progress as a species, even if all of our reasoning is post facto justification for the religion we grew up with. Fair enough...but is, for example, killing morally wrong - regardless of circumstance? And if any killing is morally wrong - why? And it's not just Judeo-Christianity that frowns on killing - considering murder or killing as a sin is arguably one of the rare universal moralities known to humanity. Just interested in P.O.V.s - for the record, am far, far, far off from being a moral absolutist, though I think it's more than obvious from my posts peace
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Jul 20, 2009 1:09:36 GMT -5
In this particular thread, and judging by HB's vague posts, the implication is that it is reality, not morals, that is 'impure'. Therefore, morality formed through reality (or real life experiences) is 'impure', whereas morality based on abstract principles is pure. This assumes an invisible wall, that reality doesn't affect abstract principles and vice-versa. Since this pertains to the death penalty, is death a real thing or an abstraction? Is punishment a real thing or an abstraction? Though, she might be thinking of axiomatic statements or definitions of faith (unjustifiable beliefs) as "pure moral principles": I believe in X. There is no Y to prove or explain it, therefore X is a pure and necessary starting point, an uncaused principle. But a universe without a cause is as suspect as a belief without reason. Plus, these kind of beliefs don't leave room for discussion. They are accepted prima facie. There is nothing to add as they are neither contradicted or supported.
|
|